T.C. Basappa v T. Nagappa

Facts

An election to a local board was challenged before an Election Commissioner, who set aside the result. The aggrieved candidate sought a writ of certiorari from the High Court to quash that order. The matter reached the Supreme Court on the scope of the High Court's power to issue certiorari under Article 226.

Issues

• What is the nature and scope of the power to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226?
• Are Indian courts bound by the technical rules and limitations attached to prerogative writs in English law?

Arguments

The petitioner contended that certiorari lay to quash an order made without or in excess of jurisdiction or with error of law apparent on the face of the record. The respondent urged that the strict procedural limitations governing English prerogative writs constrained the High Court's power.

Held

The Court held that the expression 'in the nature of' in Article 226 confers power in the widest terms and is not confined to the technical English forms of the prerogative writs. While the broad principles governing writs such as certiorari serve as guides, the Constitution frees Indian courts from the procedural fetters of English law. Certiorari lies to correct want or excess of jurisdiction and errors of law apparent on the face of the record, but not mere errors of fact. The writ is a supervisory, not appellate, remedy.

Ratio decidendi

Article 226 vests power to issue directions, orders or writs 'in the nature of' the named writs in the widest terms; Indian courts are guided but not bound by the technicalities of English prerogative-writ practice.

Significance

A foundational decision defining the breadth and supervisory character of writ jurisdiction; repeatedly relied on (including in Rupa Ashok Hurra) for the proposition that writ technicalities of English law have no role under the constitutional scheme.

Related